Father Fails To Produce Minor Son Earlier than Mediation Centre Regardless of Court docket’s Instructions, Delhi HC Questions His Proper To Interim Custody Of Little one

The Delhi Supreme Court has challenged a father’s right to temporary custody of his child after failing to show his underage son in front of a mediation center for a physical meeting with the child’s mother, despite instructions from the court. The court also found that the father could be despised for such defiant behavior.

The court dealt with a plea on physical interactions between the child and the mother. Directed to have a physical session in the presence of the counselor / child specialist at the Center for Mediation and Arbitration of the Delhi High Court on July 31, 2021.

However, the father was unable to give birth to his child as there was no physical encounter and only virtual interaction.

“Nothing could be further from the truth. The above arrangement was misinterpreted by the complainant / respondent, ”noted Judge Najmi Waziri.

The mother argued that the father had not fathered the child despite a court order and thus deprived the minor son of the right to unrestricted love and affection from his mother and vice versa.

On the other hand, the father requested a change in the order due to the COVID situation.

During the hearing, the court was informed that to protect against COVID, SOPs would be held in the mediation center, which, under the circumstances, is the best place to hold the meeting.

“The complainant / respondent is clearly violating the instructions of this court,” the court found. “Since the complainant did not give birth to the child in the mediation center in accordance with the aforementioned instructions, his right to an injunction against the child (underage son) is questionable, and the court is of the opinion that a disregard could well be issued against the applicant “, it said further.

However, in order to observe the father’s behavior at the next session, the court refrained from issuing orders at this point in time.

The court rejected the amendment and rescheduled the matter for a further hearing on September 16.


Click here to read the order

Comments are closed.